The best thread(s) I've ever read on the Lisbon Treaty(Warning: Very Long)

Hydrosylator

That's a very interesting post, and while we have some things in common, I won't be voting the same way as you. I'm not going to try and change your mind, but you might be interested in why I personally am not in any way scared off voting No by some of the groups I see advocating such a vote. Here are what I believe are the main (though not the only) reasons for each group advocating a No Vote, and why it doesn't scare me off.


Declan Ganley
If Lisbon is ratified, the EU will move to increase military efficiency and bargaining power in two important ways. The standardisation of military hardware and bulk purchasing.
So for instance, they will decide on what APV's are the best one's to use, and then buy them as a single buyer, giving them huge bargaining power, resulting in a great bargain for them.

Declan Ganley, and more importantly, his mates in the US military-industrial sector, don't like this. If this happens they will lose money by being in a weaker bargaining position with the EU, by losing business to EU companies offering similar equipment, or a combination of both. So he's trying to stop Lisbon happening, so him and his business partners can keep their profits up.

This doesn't scare me off voting no to Lisbon, because I don't like the military stuff in it (without going into detail, because I don't want to make this an argument).
Cóir
They're pro-lifers. Aliens to me. They think Lisbon will let abortion in the back door. I'm sure it won't. I disagree with their motives, and I disagree with their methods, a disinformation campaign.

This doesn't scare me off voting no, because there really is nothing in Lisbon to make their campaigns and easier or harder. They're reactionary nuts and I wouldn't let their opinion affect me one way or the other.

Extreme Right Parties(lumping them all in, because they're all the feckin same)
It's tried and tested practice of extremist groups to use harsh economic times, and periods of disillusionment with main government parties, to rope in confused voters any way they can. If they can convince people now that they're on their side (they aren't, they're fascists and simply want control of who can do what), they could possibly keep that bond going until the next elections.

They used similar tactics in the recent local and european elections throughout the EU, hence the startling results.

This doesn't scare me off voting no because I believe their goal is to win over disillusioned and fairly ignorant people with a high profile campaign, antagonistic to the political establishment.

Sinn Féin
Not quite as distasteful to me as the above groups but I'm not a fan. You mentioned them, so so will I. And before anyone asks, yes I associate them with the IRA.
Sinn Féin have always pushed a populist, left-wing agenda in their policies and in their actions. As such their opposition is nothing unusual why.

This doesn't scare me off voting no because I'm a left-wing populist. I'm not a republican though.

Along with that, there's decent, respectable organisations out there campaigning for a no vote, by my standards they are anyway. There's dogs with fleas on both sides, too, but just because you're ticking the same box as them, it doesn't mean you're lying down with them.

I've no interest in the above-mentioned bullslippers. And as none of their motivations, rather than arguments, coincide with my own, I have no self-doubt about my stance on the issue.

Do I think it will be seen a a vote of support to the above organisations if we vote no?
No of course it won't, nobody's that stupid to believe that. They'll try and claim it as a victory, but who's going to take them seriously?

nesf

Rb wrote: »

Interesting thought. I'd imagine they would, however I can't imagine their organisation and its goals would fit in with such a crowd, per se. Hopefully most don't just trust the words of these shadowy and will seek to find out who they are.

I'd say only the more politically "active" would know who Cóir are and their links to Youth Defense et al. Many of my friends who I've spoken to who aren't very active in keeping tabs on politics didn't know who they were.

It's getting quite a bit of coverage in the media but it wouldn't at all surprise me if a significant minority of people in this country were ignorant of Cóir's identity.

TheCardHolder

Good post. It's rare for me to not be put off by such a long one but it kept up my interest and made some great points.

Moriarty

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Cóir
They're pro-lifers. Aliens to me. They think Lisbon will let abortion in the back door. I'm sure it won't. I disagree with their motives, and I disagree with their methods, a disinformation campaign.

Unfortunately I don't think that's the primary reason Youth Defence/Coir/Whatever They're Calling Their Organisation Today are campaigning, it goes much deeper than the availability of abortion - which is, granted, a central tenet of their cause. Coir are vociferously anti-EU because it's the largest and most powerful proponent of civil rights and freedoms on this planet.

Hardcore catholic doctrine as practiced by extreme groups like Coir/Youth Defence and their supporters is entirely incompatible with the EU - they are effectively as hostile to the accepted values of the vast majority of Europeans as fanatical muslims or any other group of fanatics you care to think of.

Religious zealotry and reality have colided for these groups - the only choice their supporters have is to re-examine their entire system of belief or fight against the change in society. As is demonstrated depressingly frequently around this world of ours, it's a lot easier to allow yourself to get angry and riled up than to calm yourself down and try and assess things logically. These organisations are the end result of this process in a democracy. Thankfully, the best way to control these organisations is to examine their beliefs in public and demonstrate just how manipulative and deceitful they really are in pursuit of their goals, which is inevitably and almost universally to force their will over the majority by any means possible.

Benevolent dictatorship all the way for me, tbqh.

Hydrosylator

Moriarty wrote: »

Hardcore catholic doctrine as practiced by extreme groups like Coir/Youth Defence and their supporters is entirely incompatible with the EU - they are effectively as hostile to the accepted values of the vast majority of Europeans as fanatical muslims or any other group of fanatics you care to think of.

You're not too far off the mark there. The Catholic Church as an institution has been historically opposed to any movement which has sought to give people greater control over their own lives.

The solidarity movement in Poland is one exception. The Church backed it because it was against socialism, and because the pope at the time was Polish.

At the same time, priests in South Africa involving themselves in the anti-apartheid movement were getting direct orders from Rome, being told not to get involved, that Apartheid didn't concern the Church. As told to me me by a priest who was in SA at the time.

I read a deadly book a while ago, "History as Mystery" by Michael Parenti. In one section he does a great job of cataloguing the Catholic approval of civil rights abuses throughout the ages, and puts in context of how the church is depicted as a calm voice of reason in contemporary histories.

They have always opposed our freedom.

prinz

Hydrosylator wrote: »

You're not too far off the mark there. The Catholic Church as an institution has been historically opposed to any movement which has sought to give people greater control over their own lives....
They have always opposed our freedom.

The Catholic Church, as an institution is backing the Lisbon Treaty. Cóir and their friends are not representatives of the Catholic Church on this matter.

Hydrosylator

prinz wrote: »

The Catholic Church, as an institution is backing the Lisbon Treaty. Cóir and their friends are not representatives of the Catholic Church on this matter.

Didn't the bishops say that people can vote however they want?
I don't think they'd be ones to rock the boat.
To my knowledge, they have rightly attacked disinformation, and no more.
Article

I don't mean to cause offence by reference to the Church's historic abuses.
However, the excommunication of liberation theologists by Pope Benedict when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, combined with disasters like the excommunication of people involved in aborting a foetus from a pregnant nine-year-old rape victim, suggests that they're a long way from saintly or even progressive yet.

K-9

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Didn't the bishops say that people can vote however they want?
I don't think they'd be ones to rock the boat.
To my knowledge, they have rightly attacked disinformation, and no more.
Article

I don't mean to cause offence by reference to the Church's historic abuses.
However, the excommunication of liberation theologists by Pope Benedict when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger, combined with disasters like the excommunication of people involved in aborting a foetus from a pregnant nine-year-old rape victim, suggests that they're a long way from saintly or even progressive yet.

Which would lead me to think just how Catholic Fundamenalist are Coir?

I have actually seen debates where people defended the stance on the 9 year old, with little understanding or sympathy.

imeddyhobbs

This is not very long,its very lame but not very long....

View

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Do I think it will be seen a a vote of support to the above organisations if we vote no?
No of course it won't, nobody's that stupid to believe that. They'll try and claim it as a victory, but who's going to take them seriously?

Sorry that doesn't wash. This is a referendum - you get to vote "Yes" or "No", not "No, for the following reasons...". That means you are either siding with the "Yes" campaign, and supporting the proposition that the Oireachtas will be given the option of ratifying Lisbon (should it so choose), or else you are throwing your weight behind the myriad of No campaigners and backing their visions.

Remember the first question, from the other member states, that another No vote will raise is what are the exact clauses in the treaty that we have a problem with? Now, if you know what are the exact clauses that we all have a problem with - clauses that our Government could negotiate on (i.e. real clauses) - then by all means vote No if you feel so inclined.

If not, then put yourself in the shoes of the chief Irish diplomat at the EU and try and formulate a coherent answer to first question from the other member states. If you can't figure out a coherent answer for the diplomat just remember the subtext of that question is "Why should we honour our EU commitments to you (Ireland), when you don't honour your commitments to us (the other member states)?"

nesf

Hydrosylator wrote: »

Didn't the bishops say that people can vote however they want?
I don't think they'd be ones to rock the boat.

I'd read it as them feeling that they shouldn't dictate how to vote to their congregation which is admirable. I most certainly wouldn't view it as a tacit No position.

Scofflaw

View wrote: »

Sorry that doesn't wash. This is a referendum - you get to vote "Yes" or "No", not "No, for the following reasons...". That means you are either siding with the "Yes" campaign, and supporting the proposition that the Oireachtas will be given the option of ratifying Lisbon (should it so choose), or else you are throwing your weight behind the myriad of No campaigners and backing their visions.

Remember the first question, from the other member states, that another No vote will raise is what are the exact clauses in the treaty that we have a problem with? Now, if you know what are the exact clauses that we all have a problem with - clauses that our Government could negotiate on (i.e. real clauses) - then by all means vote No if you feel so inclined.

If not, then put yourself in the shoes of the chief Irish diplomat at the EU and try and formulate a coherent answer to first question from the other member states. If you can't figure out a coherent answer for the diplomat just remember the subtext of that question is "Why should we honour our EU commitments to you (Ireland), when you don't honour your commitments to us (the other member states)?"

Isn't one of the major No campaign planks that a No vote would get rid of Fianna Fáil because they endorsed the Treaty? Surely the logical corollary of that is that a No vote endorses those who oppose the Treaty - and Ganley was, if we recall, crowned king of the No vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

View wrote: »

Sorry that doesn't wash. This is a referendum - you get to vote "Yes" or "No", not "No, for the following reasons...". That means you are either siding with the "Yes" campaign, and supporting the proposition that the Oireachtas will be given the option of ratifying Lisbon (should it so choose), or else you are throwing your weight behind the myriad of No campaigners and backing their visions.

Or you are neutral or choose to express no public opinion on the matter since you believe it to be wrong for you to publicly pick a side. There are a multitude of good reasons for not picking a side publicly for many, if not most people.

bonkey

View wrote: »

Remember the first question, from the other member states, that another No vote will raise is what are the exact clauses in the treaty that we have a problem with?

Without being deliberately pedantic, I note that you're asking us to remember a possible future event.

If I'm understanding your intention, you have a belief that this is what will happen. Why is that?

The exit polls on the first referendum asked for broad reasons for voting No, not exact clauses. These were used as the basis for the steps taken to try and change public opinion.

What leads you to believe that this time round we will need specific clauses?

Now, if you know what are the exact clauses that we all have a problem with - clauses that our Government could negotiate on (i.e. real clauses) - then by all means vote No if you feel so inclined.

If not, then put yourself in the shoes of the chief Irish diplomat at the EU and try and formulate a coherent answer to first question from the other member states.

With respect, you seem to be arguing that it would be wrong to vote no for anyone who cannot point to the exact clauses they object to...which would argue is unfair.

If someone is opposed to the Treaty, they have a right to vote no should they so choose. It might be desirable that they know why they're doing so to the level of individual clauses, but that's all.

There isn't even an onus on the individual to help out the diplomat by giving a reason for their no vote. Indeed, I would suspect that many No voters will be far less willing to state their reasons this time round, as their experience (rightly or wrong) has been that doing so gives the government the basis on which to "re-run" the question.

If you can't figure out a coherent answer for the diplomat just remember the subtext of that question is "Why should we honour our EU commitments to you (Ireland), when you don't honour your commitments to us (the other member states)?"

Ireland as a nation does not have a commitment to honour with respect to ratifying this Treaty. Such an idea would implicitly suggest that the Treaty - and thus the EU - is fundamentally undemocratic.

It is, I would argue, in the EU's interest - and thus Irelands, as a member nation - to have the treaty ratified. It may even be that Irish representatives have given their commitment to other individuals...but that is not the same as saying that Ireland has some commitment to honour here. Not only that, but such a commitment is - again - undemocratic in nature. Any such individual making a claim like that should not be representing our nation, as their commitment is squarely at odds with the Constitution of the nation they are supposed to represent.

There should be enough good reasons to vote yes without having to manufacture additional ones. If there aren't, then we should perhaps consider that a No vote is justified.

Hydrosylator

K-9 wrote: »

Which would lead me to think just how Catholic Fundamenalist are Coir?

I have actually seen debates where people defended the stance on the 9 year old, with little understanding or sympathy.

I'd say they're 100% Catholic Fundamentalist.
I believe the church in Ireland isn't opposing the vote because they don't want to encourage the state to secularise by antagonising them. That's just what I think though.

Hydrosylator

View wrote: »

That means you are either siding with the "Yes" campaign, and supporting the proposition that the Oireachtas will be given the option of ratifying Lisbon (should it so choose), or else you are throwing your weight behind the myriad of No campaigners and backing their visions.

That's a logical fallacy. It's out there with "You support the war or you support the terrorists". It doesn't stand up to reason.

Hydrosylator

Scofflaw wrote: »

Isn't one of the major No campaign planks that a No vote would get rid of Fianna Fáil because they endorsed the Treaty? Surely the logical corollary of that is that a No vote endorses those who oppose the Treaty - and Ganley was, if we recall, crowned king of the No vote.

cordially,
Scofflaw

First time I've heard that argument, and I've been a No voter since the first time round. I don't believe it's logical to conclude that a vote enabling a treaty is an indication of support, or lack of, for anything but a treaty.

I regard this factionism as a smokescreen.

Ganley has a crown all right, paid for by Declan Ganley. The only thing that got him a high profile is his money. He's never been rallied behind by any of the other parties involved as far as I can tell.

His high profile in the media is there for several reasons.

He made his own artificially high profile, with his posters and stunts.
If you have money you can get into most papers by buying ads.
If a paper wanted to depict a No vote as being something which doesn't represent the interests of the Irish people, Ganley is perfect for that.

Daftendirekt

Hydrosylator wrote: »

First time I've heard that argument, and I've been a No voter since the first time round. I don't believe it's logical to conclude that a vote enabling a treaty is an indication of support, or lack of, for anything but a treaty.

Unfortunately, it's not a view shared by everyone. If you keep a look out, you'll see it argued round these parts that a No vote will force the government to step down and call a general election.

Hydrosylator

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Unfortunately, it's not a view shared by everyone. If you keep a look out, you'll see it argued round these parts that a No vote will force the government to step down and call a general election.

Ah, Fine Gael might try and bring a motion of no-confidence again, but I doubt it'd get passed, unless the Greens left the coalition, or something similarly radical. It'd be the European elections all over again.

Tar.Aldarion

RB is voting yes!?

/monocle pops out.

Hayzer89

Right wing scum! It shall be interesting to see how wrong you guys are by voting YES when the 'real' side of the treaty comes into play. I will be in here laughing my head off and cursing you for being so brainwashed by FF.

Dinner

Hayzer89 wrote: »

Right wing scum! It shall be interesting to see how wrong you guys are by voting YES when the 'real' side of the treaty comes into play. I will be in here laughing my head off and cursing you for being so brainwashed by FF.

It actually seems that they very left wing people and the very right wing people are against the treaty. Seems like a good indication of a well balanced document.

But I'll indulge you, which particular parts of the treaty are the 'real' side?

Hayzer89

Correct me if I'm wrong, and only if you are 100% certain of yourself and have official documentation to back yourself up. If a YES vote goes through, as it most likely will, does a company from any of the member countries within the EU (Poland, for example) have the right to base their company in Ireland, and pay their workers at their national minimum wage?

I've heard from MANY sources that that is EXACTLY the case, and if this is true, this would be more than enough reason for me to vote NO, and preach this simple fact that would turn 90% of the votes off the YES vote.

And before you say it, no! I have 0 time for the religious freaks Cóir. They can claim what they like, doesn't mean I am listening! But, in fairness, if this is correct, I can see where they are coming from with their 1.81% (or whatever they claim) the minimum wage will be.

The Lisbon treaty, to the best of my knowledge, does not state that the minimum wage will drop, but, if this is true it is inevitable that the minimum wage will be DRASTICALLY reduced to compete with this rule of the treaty.

Lets be honest, who in the name of f*ck is going to employ and Irish worker for 8.65% when they can employ an Eastern European for less than a quarter of the wage, and probably do far better work for that?

And yes, the treaty would make more jobs, but thaat is entirely down to reduced labour costs, something we could do without the need for any treaty such as Lisbon if we really wanted/needed to.

And this would all tied in with why 95% of employers would favour this treaty and economist's too. It does create more jobs, but at a massive hit to the wages of those whoe are currently being employed.

Also, it would explain why FF, FG and Labour all support it.

We couldn't upset Cowen's super wealthy buisness buddies now, could we?

prinz

Hayzer89 wrote: »

Right wing scum!.

Cóir and Declan Ganley etc represent which wing

prinz

Hayzer89 wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong, and only if you are 100% certain of yourself and have official documentation to back yourself up. If a YES vote goes through, as it most likely will, does a company from any of the member countries within the EU (Poland, for example) have the right to base their company in Ireland, and pay their workers at their national minimum wage?

No, they wouldn't have that right. It's been discussed at length already on these Lisbon threads.

http://www.lisbontreaty2009.ie/lisbon_treaty_faq.html

http://www.lisbontreaty.ie/questions/

http://www.womenforeurope.ie/index.php/news/106-the-minimum-wage-and-workers-rights

http://www.breakingnews.ie/business/ibec-minimum-wage-posters-rotten-to-the-coir-426906.html

etc etc, has been done to death.

Hayzer89

Like I said, have you documentation?

It would be very easy for them to knit such a rule in if they felt the need. It is selective democracy.

BlitzKrieg

Correct me if I'm wrong, and only if you are 100% certain of yourself and have official documentation to back yourself up. If a YES vote goes through, as it most likely will, does a company from any of the member countries within the EU (Poland, for example) have the right to base their company in Ireland, and pay their workers at their national minimum wage?

You are talking about the services directive and the country of origin principal.

Which was firstly blocked by the European Parliament until it was removed (source: http://www.etuc.org/a/3058) and secondly has nothing to do with lisbon it was passed under the current system, blocked by the current system and made a much better document for workers by the current system.

Under Lisbon the EU parliament the same group that stopped the country of origin principal will gain more say in over 95% of all EU legaslation.

prinz

Hayzer89 wrote: »

Like I said, have you documentation?

It would be very easy for them to knit such a rule in if they felt the need. It is selective democracy.

Could you show us where it is so? Should be easy to find if it exists

What is "selective democracy" by the way?

BlitzKrieg

he's talking about the services directive

the wiki for it is out of date (I should update it myself)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolkestein_directive

the second reading (where the wiki stops) was a success and the link I provided shows what was removed or changed http://www.etuc.org/a/3058

Hayzer89

Ok. Would you like to point out to me how and why the Lisbon treay would benefit me, as an indevidual in plain facts (none of this ''for europe'' bs I see/hear everywhere. Just raw facts to give me reason to vote YES?

In if you say ''for jobs'' either, you better hope I never meet you in the street!